dandannieldanok Posted 3 May 2007 Share Posted 3 May 2007 On a neutral front. If ManU were that good (7-1) then how did they lose last night with a whipmer!!??Did Roma really let them win??? I don't think Roma 'let' them win but they certainly did not put up much of a fight. Man Utd were incredible that night, but yesterday proves that they are not as good as most pundits and fans think they are. I thought Man Utd were lucky to win the Milan first leg personally. Milan are a class act, they may have lots of older players but their passing is the most crisp and accurate I have seen in recent years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler Posted 3 May 2007 Share Posted 3 May 2007 Blah blah blah. Now you've had your vitriol old man, answer my question of how exactly the poor show by the Italian police in Rome, would help to persuade FIFA that they would be better candidates than England to host a world cup, should the unlikely event of 2010 South Africa not happen?This is not the first time Italian police have swung out. Remember the diplomatic incident when Roma met Galatasaray, when even the Turkish authorities asked questions about the policing and stewarding of the Italian police. A kettle calling a pot black. This whole thing started with your stupid assertion that there was a big conspiracy to stop England hosting 2010 by the Italians who want it. I am asking how the basis of your conspiracy would work, based on the fact that the Italian police and stewarding has been frowned upon by senior members within the game. Despite your rant, I still think unlikely the world cup will be taken from South Africa, due to the split it would create in world football and the strife it would cause FIFA. Infants, children and morons who can't reason go 'blah, blah, blah, breadandcheese. Funny that there was no split in world football after Germany 'stole' the 2006 World Cup out of South Africa's begging bowl. And funnier still this time round how so many football federations seem to be accepting at face value sensationalist reporting about escalating violence in Mandela's paradise as an obstacle to their hosting the 2010 World Cup (even though violent crime in the country has been declining since 2003). And funny, too, how all the talk of alternative venues is being met with er.. well...thoughtful stroking of chins. Clearly, the world's progressive football federations are saving all their howls of protest for later ie too late later. As for Italy, they seem to be coveting either 2010 or 2014 (Prodi's Italians may have virtuously decided to rally around South Africa for 2010, as Brazil are still to be confrimed as hosts for 2014 and consequently Italy may feel less inhibited about mugging this third world footballing superpower). Italy were supposed to be a shoo in for the 2012 Euro's yet somehow the home of the world's most sophisticated league and current world champions let the opportunity slip from their grasp (like a skunked out Paul Robinson) onto the feet of Poland /Ukraine, the homes of er... the second and third best leagues behind the Iron Curtain and former holders of the Aeroflot Cup. As for my 'stupid assertion' that the police riot in Rome was part of a conspiracy to stop England geting the 2010 World Cup your inference is a little ambiguous to put it mildly. Are you merely ridiculing the idea of a conspiracy alone or do you doubt both the conspiracy AND England's chances of hosting 2010? Either way you've got a problem. If, on the one hand, you think that all the Anglophobes and their wives will play by Queensbury rules and let Ol' Blighty host a World Cup that it aint entitled to, well, all I'll say is that there are so many put downs to that leaf of goosebeerry bush wisdom that I'm spoilt for choice as to which one I should lob at your thick, fat head. On the other hand, if you feel that the very idea of England hosting the tournament is ludicrous, how comes that suddenly, out of nowhere, we are co favourites with Australia to do just that IF (meaning WHEN) the tournament is taken away from South Africa (again)? But there is something even more extraordinary to consider. More of that in a mo...first back to my 'stupid assertion.' You ask (fairly) how could the conspiracy work when the Italians only succeeded in making their policing and stewarding look bad? My answer - in the 'Propaganda Cup' the Italians might go through on the away goal if, by conceding the soft organisational own goal they could then counter attack and explode the myth of English football fans' conversion to civil behaviour. The problem in the end for the Rome plotters was that their scheming all looked a little too obvious. Worse, word got out (through the Carabinieri). Man U were told that they were being set up. How else were they able to warn their fans? I don't need to go over the rest. Cut to the extraordinary bit again... At the time my Italian hack mate and I first suspected that there was something more to that 7-1 scoreline (and related events) than met the eye England's name had not even been aired as alternative World Cup hosts in 2010 - only Australia's (an improbable candidate if ever there was one) had been mooted. And when I first suggested here on this very thread that all those odd events augured an audacious World Cup bid by England I was ridiculed. But three weeks on and South Africa are seen by those in the know as almost certain losers and England as almost certain winners. Just the latest coincidence in a long line of coincidences in this coincidental world in which we live or am I just a clairvoyant? Well there's one thing in the future that I can tell for certain, and that's when slimey Sepp makes his shock announcement a few months hence you'll be telling all of us that his REAL Plan A, B & C was England... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 3 May 2007 Share Posted 3 May 2007 And when I first suggested here on this very thread that all those odd events augured an audacious World Cup bid by England I was ridiculed. you still are mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 3 May 2007 Share Posted 3 May 2007 Infants, children and morons who can't reason go 'blah, blah, blah, breadandcheese.Funny that there was no split in world football after Germany 'stole' the 2006 World Cup out of South Africa's begging bowl. And funnier still this time round how so many football federations seem to be accepting at face value sensationalist reporting about escalating violence in Mandela's paradise as an obstacle to their hosting the 2010 World Cup (even though violent crime in the country has been declining since 2003). And funny, too, how all the talk of alternative venues is being met with er.. well...thoughtful stroking of chins. Clearly, the world's progressive football federations are saving all their howls of protest for later ie too late later. As for Italy, they seem to be coveting either 2010 or 2014 (Prodi's Italians may have virtuously decided to rally around South Africa for 2010, as Brazil are still to be confrimed as hosts for 2014 and consequently Italy may feel less inhibited about mugging this third world footballing superpower). Italy were supposed to be a shoo in for the 2012 Euro's yet somehow the home of the world's most sophisticated league and current world champions let the opportunity slip from their grasp (like a skunked out Paul Robinson) onto the feet of Poland /Ukraine, the homes of er... the second and third best leagues behind the Iron Curtain and former holders of the Aeroflot Cup. As for my 'stupid assertion' that the police riot in Rome was part of a conspiracy to stop England geting the 2010 World Cup your inference is a little ambiguous to put it mildly. Are you merely ridiculing the idea of a conspiracy alone or do you doubt both the conspiracy AND England's chances of hosting 2010? Either way you've got a problem. If, on the one hand, you think that all the Anglophobes and their wives will play by Queensbury rules and let Ol' Blighty host a World Cup that it aint entitled to, well, all I'll say is that there are so many put downs to that leaf of goosebeerry bush wisdom that I'm spoilt for choice as to which one I should lob at your thick, fat head. On the other hand, if you feel that the very idea of England hosting the tournament is ludicrous, how comes that suddenly, out of nowhere, we are co favourites with Australia to do just that IF (meaning WHEN) the tournament is taken away from South Africa (again)? But there is something even more extraordinary to consider. More of that in a mo...first back to my 'stupid assertion.' You ask (fairly) how could the conspiracy work when the Italians only succeeded in making their policing and stewarding look bad? My answer - in the 'Propaganda Cup' the Italians might go through on the away goal if, by conceding the soft organisational own goal they could then counter attack and explode the myth of English football fans' conversion to civil behaviour. The problem in the end for the Rome plotters was that their scheming all looked a little too obvious. Worse, word got out (through the Carabinieri). Man U were told that they were being set up. How else were they able to warn their fans? I don't need to go over the rest. Cut to the extraordinary bit again... At the time my Italian hack mate and I first suspected that there was something more to that 7-1 scoreline (and related events) than met the eye England's name had not even been aired as alternative World Cup hosts in 2010 - only Australia's (an improbable candidate if ever there was one) had been mooted. And when I first suggested here on this very thread that all those odd events augured an audacious World Cup bid by England I was ridiculed. But three weeks on and South Africa are seen by those in the know as almost certain losers and England as almost certain winners. Just the latest coincidence in a long line of coincidences in this coincidental world in which we live or am I just a clairvoyant? Well there's one thing in the future that I can tell for certain, and that's when slimey Sepp makes his shock announcement a few months hence you'll be telling all of us that his REAL Plan A, B & C was England... Please let me disect your utter cr*p. Your conspiracy centres on Italy "crushing" the myth of converted England supporters. It was all a trap in Rome. The scheming Italian authorities, devised a plan, however it got leaked all over the place. Man Utd found out about, you and your "hack mate" found out about it, the whole world and their wife found out about it. Consulting the information superhighway, where any idiot can post anything we like, a quick search on google of "Man Utd Roma 7-1 conspiracy" reveals no results with any such conspiracy. In fact, when I search for "mind control goat ruler conspiracy" I get more relevant websites. It seems many people found about it, yet this is the only place we hear of it. It got leaked, but only so far. However, the truth is out there, so you and your mate get an X-Files hard on and decide to prance about as Mulder and Scully. You found the missing piece. England had never been touted as a possible replacement to host 2010 should South Africa be unable to host it. You did it. First to the news. What's that, a clairvoyant you say, b*llocks I say. Of course, South Africa's plans for the 2010 world cup and the slow development have been a worry for 2 years now. England were being mooted as a possible back-up throughout that time, along with Australia, US and Spain as countries with the facilities. First to the news, I don't think so. You must have been asleep over the last two years o have missed the reports of England being mooted back in 2005 and 2006, but whats that, you expressed opinion as fact, oh you must be right. Anyway, I'm off to book my tickets for England 2010, Italy 2014 and, who for the 2018 world cup? The truth is out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler Posted 4 May 2007 Share Posted 4 May 2007 Please let me disect your utter cr*p.Your conspiracy centres on Italy "crushing" the myth of converted England supporters. It was all a trap in Rome. The scheming Italian authorities, devised a plan, however it got leaked all over the place. Man Utd found out about, you and your "hack mate" found out about it, the whole world and their wife found out about it. Consulting the information superhighway, where any idiot can post anything we like, a quick search on google of "Man Utd Roma 7-1 conspiracy" reveals no results with any such conspiracy. In fact, when I search for "mind control goat ruler conspiracy" I get more relevant websites. It seems many people found about it, yet this is the only place we hear of it. It got leaked, but only so far. However, the truth is out there, so you and your mate get an X-Files hard on and decide to prance about as Mulder and Scully. You found the missing piece. England had never been touted as a possible replacement to host 2010 should South Africa be unable to host it. You did it. First to the news. What's that, a clairvoyant you say, b*llocks I say. Of course, South Africa's plans for the 2010 world cup and the slow development have been a worry for 2 years now. England were being mooted as a possible back-up throughout that time, along with Australia, US and Spain as countries with the facilities. First to the news, I don't think so. You must have been asleep over the last two years o have missed the reports of England being mooted back in 2005 and 2006, but whats that, you expressed opinion as fact, oh you must be right. Anyway, I'm off to book my tickets for England 2010, Italy 2014 and, who for the 2018 world cup? The truth is out there... Is that so? Strange then that you should 'forget' to detonate this piece of dynamite under my theory in your earliest contribution on this thread. An uncharacteristic omission from a committed Googler like yourself if I may say. More curiously, I can't find any information on the web about any sporting body, government agency or any recognised news outlet making or reporting such a statement prior to Sepp Blatter's recent announcement. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to your mysterious 'mootings' of 2005/6 (and 'mysterious' is putting it mildly as there has been no discernible reaction at all to 'Blather's' ambiguous, equivocal 2007 'mootings' which is a clear indication that something fishy is going on - wishing for a 'natural catastrophe' indeed!)? And even MORE strange and curious still, I notice that your prose descended to sub GCSE level in your last post. It's a sure sign that you're rattled. Shame that you didn't count backwards from one thousand and give your red mist a little time to evaporate. You might not have fallen into the little trap I set you if you had... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexikokopops Posted 4 May 2007 Share Posted 4 May 2007 Don't you think that it's about time you left the Student Union bar breadandcheese (seeing as most of Westminster are still ensconced there I appreciate that this is easier said than done)? Once you're outside the lecture theatre puking your guts up you might realise that there is big difference between talking the talk and walking the walk.... Which might not be good enough but are at least a notch up on the Student Union bar... When you posted that I was actually in Westminster Student Union Bar, strange... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 4 May 2007 Share Posted 4 May 2007 Is that so? Strange then that you should 'forget' to detonate this piece of dynamite under my theory in your earliest contribution on this thread. An uncharacteristic omission from a committed Googler like yourself if I may say. More curiously, I can't find any information on the web about any sporting body, government agency or any recognised news outlet making or reporting such a statement prior to Sepp Blatter's recent announcement. Perhaps you could provide me with a link to your mysterious 'mootings' of 2005/6 (and 'mysterious' is putting it mildly as there has been no discernible reaction at all to 'Blather's' ambiguous, equivocal 2007 'mootings' which is a clear indication that something fishy is going on - wishing for a 'natural catastrophe' indeed!)? And even MORE strange and curious still, I notice that your prose descended to sub GCSE level in your last post. It's a sure sign that you're rattled. Shame that you didn't count backwards from one thousand and give your red mist a little time to evaporate. You might not have fallen into the little trap I set you if you had... Damn. I've been trapped by a fiendish masterplan. Anyhow, time to blow some more holes through your X-Files mystery. Here are some links that clearly show there are doubts about the South African preparations, these are from 2006. http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/11/sports/rob.php http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup200...1818166,00.html http://www.joblog.co.za/2006/06/is-2010-still-ours In the last link, the idea of England is mooted in the comments at the bottom. Fact is, there are question marks over South Africa's preparation and have been for over 2 years. There are only 4 possible countries capable of hosting a world cup at short notice. These are USA, Australia, England & Spain. No-one else. It does not take you and Scully to work out England are in with a shout. It has only recently been printed in the media because Blatter has attempted to put pressure on South Africa publicly, making it clear his worries and that there is back-up to calm any fears that the World Cup may be ruined. Now, let me say again, I find it unlikely that South Africa will not host the world cup as this is not just a South African world cup but the world cup of the whole continent of Africa. You say the link and cause of the fiendish Italian authorities in Rome is world cup 2010. I am saying this falls down as a reason for your "conspiracy", a conspiracy that no-one else has taken up. A conspiracy that gets no mention anywhere on the internet. Now let's be clear. It is extremely easy to start a rumour on the internet, just make a website, post a few posts and it is picked up in a snowball effect. Your conspiracy cannot be found. Your conspiracy is the ramblings of a fool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 Interesting story in today's Grauniad for 'co-incidence theorists' to mull over: Fifa has been forced to build a £400m contingency fund to cater for the possible collapse of the 2010 World Cup. Insurers are holding off on a decision to provide coverage for the event in South Africa amid fears that the stadiums will not be ready in time. Assessors for Munich Re, the German insurance giant which insured the 2006 tournament in Germany, are concerned about progress. "The situation is quite difficult and fluid," said a spokesman for Munich Re. "The problem is they need 10 stadiums and some of these are rugby grounds that are run-down and in a very bad condition." Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Fifa insider admitted that insurance companies also had concerns about security, transport infrastructure and the local political climate. In a press release after its executive committee meeting last month the world governing body said: "Fifa is aiming at reserve capital of over $800m by the end of 2010." This column can reveal that the decision reflects fears over insurance support for the tournament. Although Fifa is prepared to cover its commercial obligations for the 2010 tournament, which is the pet project of the president, Sepp Blatter, future bids - such as England's for 2018 - must provide evidence of adequate insurance support. Next year's Confederations Cup - a World Cup dry run - may not go ahead as scheduled, but a Fifa spokesman insisted there were no internal concerns over the World Cup. So folks when will slimey Sepp call it off and where will 2010 go? Watch out for a war of words between FIFA and the FA. But there again whenever is there not a war of words between SKY, sorry, I mean the FA and Canal +, sorry, I mean FIFA? Maybe better to look out for a 'truce of words.' Or pictures of Blatter in a gay sado-masochistic bondage orgy in The Screws... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamL Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 Interesting story in today's Grauniad for 'co-incidence theorists' to mull over:Fifa has been forced to build a £400m contingency fund to cater for the possible collapse of the 2010 World Cup. Insurers are holding off on a decision to provide coverage for the event in South Africa amid fears that the stadiums will not be ready in time. Assessors for Munich Re, the German insurance giant which insured the 2006 tournament in Germany, are concerned about progress. "The situation is quite difficult and fluid," said a spokesman for Munich Re. "The problem is they need 10 stadiums and some of these are rugby grounds that are run-down and in a very bad condition." Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Fifa insider admitted that insurance companies also had concerns about security, transport infrastructure and the local political climate. In a press release after its executive committee meeting last month the world governing body said: "Fifa is aiming at reserve capital of over $800m by the end of 2010." This column can reveal that the decision reflects fears over insurance support for the tournament. Although Fifa is prepared to cover its commercial obligations for the 2010 tournament, which is the pet project of the president, Sepp Blatter, future bids - such as England's for 2018 - must provide evidence of adequate insurance support. Next year's Confederations Cup - a World Cup dry run - may not go ahead as scheduled, but a Fifa spokesman insisted there were no internal concerns over the World Cup. So folks when will slimey Sepp call it off and where will 2010 go? Watch out for a war of words between FIFA and the FA. But there again whenever is there not a war of words between SKY, sorry, I mean the FA and Canal +, sorry, I mean FIFA? Maybe better to look out for a 'truce of words.' Or pictures of Blatter in a gay sado-masochistic bondage orgy in The Screws... What has this got to do with 'Man Utd 7-1 Roma' ? The World Cup will go ahead. Fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davieG Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 What has this got to do with 'Man Utd 7-1 Roma' ? The World Cup will go ahead. Fact. Aha that's the apparent title of the topic but there's a subliminal one the reads Chandler 7 - Foxestalk 1 Of course the World Cup will go ahead the question is Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sods Posted 2 April 2008 Author Share Posted 2 April 2008 BLIMEY! What did everyone think of the 7-1 then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daggers Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 Of course the World Cup will go ahead the question is Where? I bet you that it all has something to do with those nasty McCanns he is so fond of... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamL Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 Aha that's the apparent title of the topic but there's a subliminal one the reads Chandler 7 - Foxestalk 1 Of course the World Cup will go ahead the question is Where? I had to read back a few posts to see what Chendler was actually replying to. I thought he was mad. Good question, I think it will stay in South Africa though. I'll probably end up being proved wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnegan Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 How the fook did I miss this the first time round!? Quality Chandler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox You Forest Posted 2 April 2008 Share Posted 2 April 2008 Quality Chandler. Reading through this made me laugh so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 4 April 2008 Share Posted 4 April 2008 Aha that's the apparent title of the topic but there's a subliminal one the reads Chandler 7 - Foxestalk 1 Of course the World Cup will go ahead the question is Where? I think one should expect a cunning and calculated plan by the Italians in Manchester during the return leg of Man Utd-Roma. Learning from their mistakes in Rome, they will make the UK police look bad with Sepp Blatter watching intensely. Sepp will probably cave into Italian demands and the Anglosphere will be defeated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 4 April 2008 Share Posted 4 April 2008 The Anglosphere will be defeated. Are they going to fire a Proton Torpedo into its Exhaust Port? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breadandcheese Posted 4 April 2008 Share Posted 4 April 2008 Are they going to fire a Proton Torpedo into its Exhaust Port? I wish I knew the answer. Chandler, the truth is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryn Posted 4 April 2008 Share Posted 4 April 2008 Is Chandler actually a real person? He's like a charicature. He's too funny and too one dimensional to be real, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 4 April 2008 Share Posted 4 April 2008 Is Chandler actually a real person? He's like a charicature. He's too funny and too one dimensional to be real, surely? Chandler and Thracian are both like characters out of comedy strips or a cr ap sitcom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 6 April 2008 Share Posted 6 April 2008 Can't be bothered to respond to all the points in this thread, but surely France's opposition to the Iraq war should have made them more likely to host the 2012 Olympics? The real reason was due to the multinational sponsors deciding London was a better bet. They're the same forces that will decide whether South Africa is in a fit and proper state to host the 2010 World Cup. It's hosted the cricket and rugby versions without any serious problems, so should be able to move onto this. But the Premier League would be very interested in a piece of the action (and a large share of the proceeds), should contingency plans become necessary. And bringing a World Cup to England might just be the one thing that could save Gordon Brown from electoral oblivion in 2010. Unlike Chandler, I don't think the World Cup will be switched, but I can see reasons why others might think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynny Posted 6 April 2008 Share Posted 6 April 2008 And bringing a World Cup to England might just be the one thing that could save Gordon Brown from electoral oblivion in 2010. How so? I don't see any possible chain of events that'd give him any credit for it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 6 April 2008 Share Posted 6 April 2008 How so? I don't see any possible chain of events that'd give him any credit for it at all. It's all to do with the feel good factor. A successful tournament would help people to forget their problems and think that life wasn't so bad after all. That's the theory anyway. Euro 96 didn't help the tories much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultra Posted 6 April 2008 Share Posted 6 April 2008 It's all to do with the feel good factor. A successful tournament would help people to forget their problems and think that life wasn't so bad after all. That's the theory anyway. Euro 96 didn't help the tories much. It might have done if we'd won it! A World Cup in England (and maybe Scotland/Wales too?) might allow the government to regain some credibility and would certainly be a massive economic boost for the host venues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 6 April 2008 Share Posted 6 April 2008 It might have done if we'd won it!A World Cup in England (and maybe Scotland/Wales too?) might allow the government to regain some credibility and would certainly be a massive economic boost for the host venues. They might have lost it by less of a margin but the tories were always going to lose that election. At the minute I'd say the next election is 50/50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.